Appeal No. 2006-2414
Application No. 10/668,514
Although we agree with appellants’ general urging in the brief as to this
rejection that the examiner’s reasons for combinability as expressed at the top of
page 5 of the answer are weakly based, we agree with the examiner’s responsive
argument at page 13 of the answer that, based upon the additional teachings in
Sterler, the artisan would have found it obvious to have utilized the teachings of
Sterler to provide backup warning indications for any and all types of warning
indicators including those in Sasaki. We are convinced of the propriety of the
obviousness of this subject matter of independent claim 1 on appeal and its method
version in independent claim 15 based upon the teachings in Sterler.
The significant point noted by the examiner’s reference to the middle portion
of column 1 is that, as set forth at lines 33 through 35, the improved circuit
“provides a secondary indication of module failure when the primary indicator is
inoperative.” This teaching is carried through as to the operability of the circuit of
figure 2 as best expressed at column 2, lines 49 through 54, which repeat the
conditional/if nature of the additional reliance upon a secondary indicator of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007